I would change "will receive" to "may request."

I would change "signed certificate from the Crown and the incumbent Seneschal" to "a certificate, signed by the Crown and the Seneschal."

Please add me as a co-sponsor.

El Lexhatx provides for a legislative advisory committee, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu.  Most meaningful bills must be submitted to this committee before they may be added to the Clark.

Quote from: Lexh.H
6.4. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". No bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee", except as provided by Lex.H.6.2 or Lex.H.6.3.
6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.
6.6. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the bill has passed the hopper and the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.

Current members: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu , @Miestră Schivă, UrN .

Submitting your bill to the CRL is as simple as posting in this thread and requesting that we take a look.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA on April 24, 2022, 08:36:21 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2022, 07:46:14 PM
Even random number generators understand the might of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, the best province.

Cool your jets propellers there, sailor boys. The scorinator does give a slight advantage to the home team -- and all of yours so far have been at home lol

That's better for everyone involved, though.  We get to win, and they get to spend time in Maritiimi-Maxhestic.

Carlus, your badge just looks so rad.

Even random number generators understand the might of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, the best province.

I'm not sure it's a "red herring," which is a term that implies I am using a bad-faith submission to try to distract from real solutions.  I think that it's actually kind of basic: if you want neutral and nonpartisan moderation, having neutral and nonpartisan moderators is probably a good idea.

This isn't really an issue right now (Txec is doing a great job and is very careful), but if moderators start segregating speech again, then it's probably going to come up.  It might not be practical, but that's different than saying it's just a distraction.

Really, I don't think a Speech Police is very practical, no matter who's doing it.  The main issue is that Talossa has shrunk so much that any hope of diversifying into different fora has vanished.  There used to be some hope of multiple Wittenbergs, with an official message board only for official things and multiple other private boards for different subcommunities.  Right now, there's basically no way to "vote with your feet" besides becoming inactive.  If you think someone is repellant, you can't go to a different Wittenberg.  The solution is probably just to focus on growing the nation until we're healthy enough that being Talossan doesn't mean being forced to be around every Talossan.

Well, the Chancery moderates Witt.  But the Secretary of State is also the head of the lead party of the Government.  Maybe we should separate the Chancery from politics, again.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, I'm not saying Txec is doing anything wrong.  But if you want impartial and neutral moderation, ensuring the moderator is nonpartisan would be a start.

Look, I don't want to relitigate this again.  As I've indicated, I'd strongly prefer to move on.  But if we're going to do that, you need to move on, too -- you can't keep making mocking jokes about your harassment campaign.  Your speech was about maybe moving past things like this, but that requires your participation, too.

So how about we just say forget it and we move on, and you just stop doing this in the future?  No need to figure out whether it was right or wrong -- let's just agree to move on?  Is that possible?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 06:02:21 PM
Let's explore this question of "hurt". The good Baron and I will likely never agree whether Rough Music was justified in response to his Beric'ht Talossan newspaper giving a platform to religious bigotry and not withdrawing it. But if the good Baron understands that, Rough Music happened because I was personally hurt by BT, then we may be a step closer to a consensus.

You really disliked a cartoon and you thought it was out-of-bounds.  Your response was a campaign of harassment against the editor to try to make him miserable enough that he would fire the cartoonist.  That is not okay.  Instead, I would suggest that you could have stopped reading the newspaper, tried to start a boycotting campaign to get others to stop reading it, publicly pressured contributors to withdraw from the publication, etc.  I can imagine very few times in Talossa when it's okay to start a harassment campaign, and "I don't like what someone wrote in your paper" isn't among them.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 06:02:21 PMIn situations of heightened political conflict, where existential or principled issues are at stage, both sides get hurt. The whataboutist response here would be for me to list all the times, and all the ways, in which I have been "hurt" by how people in Talossa deal with me. To which the inevitiable responses would be:

• you weren't really hurt;
• and if you were, you deserved it for your bad behaviour.

I am saying that a specific thing you are doing right now and in this thread is wrong and cruel.  You are inventing a hypothetical conversation.  That's not the same.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 06:02:21 PM
See? It never ends unless both sides agree to stop reacting and start acting. Peace is only possible at the point where both sides are willing to forgive. And I use that word in a technical sense. It doesn't mean "pretending that what you did to me was okay". It means "realising that if I don't set aside my understandable urge to get even, the cycle doesn't end".

I'm not trying to get even. I'm asking you to stop something specific that you're doing which is cruel.

It's not the end of the world.  I'm not going to go to sleep crying tonight because you're laughing about something cruel that you did.  But I just couldn't believe you would make a speech about civility while quoting, right down to the capitalization and formatting, something I said to you when I was begging you to stop.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 05:37:03 PM
^^^^ Just as I said. The problem with "cleaning up Talossan discourse" is that every proposal is "whatabout"ed to death.

Just like in the United States - there is a lack of social consensus on where the line between "robust political debate" and "disinformation, personal abuse and smear tactics" lies. Achieving that will have to be the first step to cleaning up the discourse.

I just think that a speech about civility and treating each other better might be more successful without including cruel jokes about a time when you hurt someone.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 24, 2022, 03:44:50 PM
Both sides will support the Wittenberg death penalty for the least snarky comment from their opponent ("JUST STOP BULLYING ME!!!", they'll shriek), whereas any pushback on their own slander and personal abuse will be met with pearl-clutching about freedom of speech.

It's really gross to me that you've turned your campaign of harassment from a few years ago into a joke, and it's all the worse when you include it in a speech about civility.  For months, you replied to almost everything I said on Wittenberg with cruel, personal mockery, trying to make things so unpleasant for me that I would agree to fire a political cartoonist at my paper.  You called it "rough music," and it was truly unbearable to be on the other end of it.  I didn't ask for a "Wittenberg death penalty" from any moderator at any time, and I didn't even say that it was unfair to criticize me -- I just begged you to stop your deliberate campaign of harassment.

You have said how you are delighted by the fact that you were able to disrupt my mental health and hurt me, and you still appear certain that it was fair and I deserved any cruelty you wanted to inflict.  I've given up hope of trying to change your views on that.  But would it be too much to ask for you to stop referencing it, over and over, every year, as a means to keep hurting me?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 23, 2022, 04:44:16 PM
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu an FT video question for you. Do you think @King John  would be interested in reading to camera his Reunision Day statement? If so, would you be able to make the ask?

The statement did hit all the right notes on national unity so I would like to help spread it further than just Witt.

I don't know if he would, but I would be more than happy to bug him about it.

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on April 23, 2022, 11:02:51 PM
We should not be hasty in approving this CoA.

The Tudor Rose (or English Rose) is normally reserved. We may think of changing the charges, until and unless the armiger shows why he is entitled to them. 

Dean BenArd

The Tudor Rose specifically has white inner petals.  It's specific and symbolic, since the red and white each represented one of the Plantagenet houses.  So while I appreciate the Dean's caution (and we should always shy away from haste!), I think this one is okay.

-NRH

Also amazing!  Really thinking about giving vlogging a try, what with all this.  I've never done it, but it might be interesting and doesn't seem like it would require that much work (although maybe I'm speaking in ignorance and it's hugely laborious).

My goodness!  Quite an excited pile-up in my absence!  Not sure where to start!  Maybe it's better to just note that the better graces of @owenedwards , @Antonio Montagnha, Ed. D. , @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu , and others are probably right to note that the insults seem... "disproportionate," maybe?

I don't think that it's wrong to try to convince a Member of Cosa to defect from a coalition or government, and it happens in other countries from time to time -- a couple of weeks ago, in fact, the coalition whip of the Israeli governing majority, Idit Silman, defected to Likud and thereby ended the coalition's majority in the Knesset, and a few years ago in the UK the Tories lost their majority when Philip Lee defected to the Liberal Democrats.  Now, I'm not such a scholar of political science as many here, so maybe there's some differences I'm missing, but this process doesn't seem all that unusual, much less shocking.  In South Africa, it was actually regulated officially for a decade -- you were allowed two defections a year, no more!

Some countries have laws against this practice, like India, but it's commonplace in America.  In 2001, Jim Jeffords of Vermont actually shifted control of that chamber when he joined the Democrats.

If we'd like to establish a new norm in Talossa that we don't want to allow this practice, then that's fine with me.  Let's be specific, and see if we can put it into law.  But maybe lower the invective a little bit, either way?